That statistic stuff...
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,701
And I have said to many people, the only statistic that matters is whether AA works for you or not.
And you cannot know the answer until you try it.
One of the wisest things in the program is that it asks that we all share our experience. Not our theoretical knowledge. Not our statistical analysis.
No. AA does not ask us to share any of that. Rather AA suggests that each of us share our own individual experience and let the listener recognize themselves in our stories...or not.
When we get away from that simple sharing of our stories, we want to make claims that AA is the perfect only way, or that it is some evil destructive program. None of that is useful.
What is useful is to speak honestly about one's own experience in recovery.
Then let your story find the right people who will benefit from it.
And you cannot know the answer until you try it.
One of the wisest things in the program is that it asks that we all share our experience. Not our theoretical knowledge. Not our statistical analysis.
No. AA does not ask us to share any of that. Rather AA suggests that each of us share our own individual experience and let the listener recognize themselves in our stories...or not.
When we get away from that simple sharing of our stories, we want to make claims that AA is the perfect only way, or that it is some evil destructive program. None of that is useful.
What is useful is to speak honestly about one's own experience in recovery.
Then let your story find the right people who will benefit from it.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,775
And I have said to many people, the only statistic that matters is whether AA works for you or not.
And you cannot know the answer until you try it.
One of the wisest things in the program is that it asks that we all share our experience. Not our theoretical knowledge. Not our statistical analysis.
No. AA does not ask us to share any of that. Rather AA suggests that each of us share our own individual experience and let the listener recognize themselves in our stories...or not.
When we get away from that simple sharing of our stories, we want to make claims that AA is the perfect only way, or that it is some evil destructive program. None of that is useful.
What is useful is to speak honestly about one's own experience in recovery.
Then let your story find the right people who will benefit from it.
And you cannot know the answer until you try it.
One of the wisest things in the program is that it asks that we all share our experience. Not our theoretical knowledge. Not our statistical analysis.
No. AA does not ask us to share any of that. Rather AA suggests that each of us share our own individual experience and let the listener recognize themselves in our stories...or not.
When we get away from that simple sharing of our stories, we want to make claims that AA is the perfect only way, or that it is some evil destructive program. None of that is useful.
What is useful is to speak honestly about one's own experience in recovery.
Then let your story find the right people who will benefit from it.
Well said.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,775
And I have said to many people, the only statistic that matters is whether AA works for you or not. And you cannot know the answer until you try it. One of the wisest things in the program is that it asks that we all share our experience. Not our theoretical knowledge. Not our statistical analysis. No. AA does not ask us to share any of that. Rather AA suggests that each of us share our own individual experience and let the listener recognize themselves in our stories...or not. When we get away from that simple sharing of our stories, we want to make claims that AA is the perfect only way, or that it is some evil destructive program. None of that is useful. What is useful is to speak honestly about one's own experience in recovery. Then let your story find the right people who will benefit from it.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,701
I finally dug out the article JoeNerv spoke of -- Non 12 Step Rehab Programs: A Veritable Option .
This discussion is great, but that is not a serious piece of writing. The sloppiness and fuzzy thinking are probably supposed to make it accessible.
This discussion is great, but that is not a serious piece of writing. The sloppiness and fuzzy thinking are probably supposed to make it accessible.
Actually, that article says: (my emphasis)
"More good news for non 12 step treatment methods is their success rate of over 70% versus the traditional 28-day, 12 step programs that barely manage to reach a successful treatment rate of 10%."
"More good news for non 12 step treatment methods is their success rate of over 70% versus the traditional 28-day, 12 step programs that barely manage to reach a successful treatment rate of 10%."
The person who wrote it obviously wasn't the greatest writer, as that line turtle quoted could be read several different ways, but again, the gyst of it is:
non 12 step - 70% success
12 step - less than 10%
I'm quite certain that was what she meant.
Non 12 step treatment is clearly better! I mean, what would you choose if you knew nothing of the different methods? A 12 step rehab, where you're chances are less than 10%, or a non 12 step rehab, where your chances are 70%. Especially since rehabs can cost lots of out of the pocket money today.
Somebody please tell me why I'm even arguing this?
non 12 step - 70% success
12 step - less than 10%
I'm quite certain that was what she meant.
Non 12 step treatment is clearly better! I mean, what would you choose if you knew nothing of the different methods? A 12 step rehab, where you're chances are less than 10%, or a non 12 step rehab, where your chances are 70%. Especially since rehabs can cost lots of out of the pocket money today.
Somebody please tell me why I'm even arguing this?
The person who wrote it obviously wasn't the greatest writer, as that line turtle quoted could be read several different ways, but again, the gyst of it is:
non 12 step - 70% success
12 step - less than 10%
I'm quite certain that was what she meant.
Non 12 step treatment is clearly better! I mean, what would you choose if you knew nothing of the different methods? A 12 step rehab, where you're chances are less than 10%, or a non 12 step rehab, where your chances are 70%. Especially since rehabs can cost lots of out of the pocket money today.
Somebody please tell me why I'm even arguing this?
non 12 step - 70% success
12 step - less than 10%
I'm quite certain that was what she meant.
Non 12 step treatment is clearly better! I mean, what would you choose if you knew nothing of the different methods? A 12 step rehab, where you're chances are less than 10%, or a non 12 step rehab, where your chances are 70%. Especially since rehabs can cost lots of out of the pocket money today.
Somebody please tell me why I'm even arguing this?
'New and improved Alpecin, with Caffeine is proven to keep your hair silky smooth, unlike more traditional non-caffeine based shampoos. If you like having dirty, dry hair non-caffeinated shampoo is probably right for you but....' etc
Let's park it in the 'None of my Business file, and get back to trudging the road to Happy (though ocassionally irritated) Destiny
P
This got me thinking about what the actual influence of statistics would have been on me when I was checking out the easier softer ways. There weren't that many options back then. Three hospitals, Cherry Farm, Sunnyside, and Queen Mary, the latter having a 12 step based program along with psycho therapy etc, and was recognised as a very successful model at the time. Then there was the Salvation Army Bridge program. The counselling with NSAD which included such options as trying controlled drinking plans, and of course there was AA. The Bridge gave me a similar feeling based on an interview I had with them a year or two previously.
I immediately ruled out the two that appeared to be the most successful, Queen Mary, and AA because my perception was that these two really knew what they were doing.
Why did I rule out the options that looked like they would work the best? Because it seemed to me that these programmes had the ability to see right through me. They seemed to require a level of honesty that terrified me. Imagine psychotherapists dredging through my secret issues. Imagine telling another human being the whole story, never mind God! The prospect of people finding out exactly what I was like completely freaked me out. There were so many things in my past that I hoped would never see the light of day.
So, in spite of the perception that some methods would work better than others, I chose what appeared to me to be the easiest path, where I felt I could con my way through, say just enough, do just enough, to convince the staff I was doing ok. There was no way in hell I was going to take on anything that might expose the truth about me.
So I guess the facts were not of much interest to me. I was mainly interested in getting through whatever treatment there was with minimum effort and discomfort. The longer term outcomes did not figure because I did not think in those terms. I was only concerned with the immediate issues around my own comfort and well being.
I immediately ruled out the two that appeared to be the most successful, Queen Mary, and AA because my perception was that these two really knew what they were doing.
Why did I rule out the options that looked like they would work the best? Because it seemed to me that these programmes had the ability to see right through me. They seemed to require a level of honesty that terrified me. Imagine psychotherapists dredging through my secret issues. Imagine telling another human being the whole story, never mind God! The prospect of people finding out exactly what I was like completely freaked me out. There were so many things in my past that I hoped would never see the light of day.
So, in spite of the perception that some methods would work better than others, I chose what appeared to me to be the easiest path, where I felt I could con my way through, say just enough, do just enough, to convince the staff I was doing ok. There was no way in hell I was going to take on anything that might expose the truth about me.
So I guess the facts were not of much interest to me. I was mainly interested in getting through whatever treatment there was with minimum effort and discomfort. The longer term outcomes did not figure because I did not think in those terms. I was only concerned with the immediate issues around my own comfort and well being.
Maybe I just don't 'get it', but I don't see how anyone can compile statistics about an anonymous organization. How do they get their numbers? I used to go to AA and no one was keeping tabs on who was sober.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,775
I agree.
However, that rarely stops some from using stats to "prove" how successful the program was before it got "watered down."
Or on the flip side how unsuccessful it is by those who want to take pot shots at AA.
The whole thing about statistics to prove this or that is a joke. The only stat that counts is your own sobriety.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,126
Alcoholics Anonymous conducts this survey to keep members informed on current trends in membership characteristics. The survey also provides information about A.A. to the professional community and to the general public as part of A.A.’s purpose to carry our message to those who still suffer from alcoholism..." (from the most recent survey done by AA).
I don't know about everybody else, but I have participated in at least the last two. I guess it just depends on where you are or where you participate (just at meetings, also at local conventions, or at state conventions--big or small, or also at national conventions).
(o:
NoelleR
The surveys I have seen have been very general in nature, covering things like lenght of sobriety, age groups and gender mix, giving an overview of current membership, never anything about recovery rates. The one survey that I saw taken was back in the eighties but only members with more than five years sobriety were invited to participate if memory serves me correctly. Anyhow, I hadn't been sober long enough. I remember thinking at the time that it was a very conservative approach.
A survey of recovery rates would, I guess, have to run over a good period of time with extended participation of members. I have never seen or heard of anything like that.
A survey of recovery rates would, I guess, have to run over a good period of time with extended participation of members. I have never seen or heard of anything like that.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)